Have a good Wednesday Mr. Brown
November 28th, 2007
What is it about Labour’s friends in the North?
Even when things are going well for a Prime Minister a Wednesday morning is probably not the best of times to be around Number 10. Over-shadowing everything when parliament is in session is Prime Minister’s Questions - the weekly ritual that has to be surmounted and where the post-holder can only guess at what he is likely to be asked.
Gordon’s usual day, we are told, starts very early with a look at the papers and these will not bring much comfort. The donations scandal involving Mr. Abrahams or Mr. Martin, whatever he likes to be called, has exploded as more names are revealed of people who have acted as proxies for him.
Also interesting are the revelations about the selective nature of his support.
Thankfully for Gordon his leadership campaign refused money from this source although at least one of the campaigns of those running for deputy were beneficiaries.
To get a sense of what Abrahams is like there is an an excellent piece by Stephen Pollard on his Spectator blog which was referred to on the thread yesterday and which is well worth reading.
Pollard recalls meetings the Fabian Society, where he worked, from 1992-1995. “One of the regular - indeed, one of the most assiduous - attendees at those meetings was David Abrahams. He would mix, as would everyone in that milieu, with backbenchers, front benchers, NEC members and Shadow Cabinet members..Many of those people are now ministers. Others are Cabinet members, some very senior. It is possible - just - that when they say they have no idea who David Abrahams is, or cannot recall ever meeting him, they are telling the truth. It is, after all, possible that there are people in the country who have never heard of, say, Gordon Brown. Possible, yes; but very, very unlikely..Indeed, far from keeping himself to himself, as is being written, Abrahams was about the pushiest person I ever came across in my time at the Fabians - and in politics, that is saying something.
Abrahams’ explanation of his behaviour makes little sense. Can he really have gone from being one of the pushiest and most self-aggrandising people I came across to being so afraid of publicity that he channelled donations through other people? I don’t think we have got remotely to the bottom of the Abrahams side of this story.”
Meanwhile on the next general election spread betting markets the buy price for Tory seats is now above 300.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
The Indy’s juxtaposition of that headline with that pic is a bit mischievous, isn’t it?
Just finished reading yesterday nights thread. Compulsive reading! Thank goodness those adolescent Tories from earlier had disappeared off to Guido’s fiction factory and elsewhere.
It’s odd that someone (Abrahams) who claims he wants to avoid publicity should have appeared on Newsnight. It looks like we’re dealing with a real Walter Mitty character which is always dangerous.
This look bleak for Labour which is a shame because of all their recent difficulties this just a silly oversight. I have no question marks whatever over Brown’s probity.
It’ll blow over in a few weeks and the damage can be assessed. They’re lucky that they’re facing a smarmy Tory Party who 60% will never vote for but unlucky to have a sparkling new Lib Dem leader who could be quite a threat.
Mischievous editing? Newspapers? Shurely not!
Roger, it may “blow over”, as you would put it; however I presume you are not being so brave as to suggest that it will not leave a serious legacy over the issue of trust and corruption. Admittedly by itself it means little, but as part of a steady drip of headlines starting with the Blair cash-for-honours episode, I don’t think the press will let the people have any impression of this aged government other than that of being a bit dodgy. This will in turn affect the polls.
1. rullko, it took me about a minute to realize it wasn’t pointing at Blair!
2. your right on your second point, the obvious lies being told about Abrahams personality are only going to cause more problems for Labour, i would expect damage control, instead, their fueling the flames with easily unraveled lies. What a mess.
The Tories are lucky that they’re facing a flashy Labour Party who 61% will never vote for but unlucky to have a sparkling new Lib Dem leader who could be quite a threat.
I missed the end of Newsnight.
Got to love the PBer who posted that “thick of it” phone call
Will watch again at work when time permits
The burning question here is do we have a snappy -gate name for this latest fiasco? I like Geordiegate or perhaps Gallowgategate.
I have been looking at the post of the Labour Creatures like Roger and the daywalker Micheal White.
They know that their party has been caught in the till. They know they have perverted democracy - and as such, have no right to occupy number 10.
But for the Labour Creatures, it was nevr about democracy. It was and is, always about power. Politics to them is war. Democracy is irrelevent.
They consider the corruption scandle as nothing more than a direct hit. They feel they must regroup and attack.
They need to realise it is democracy - not war. Else, the people with exclude them from democracy - just as they did with Moseley’s BUF, the NF and the Communist Party.
BLOODY STUPID SLOW POSTING!!
Sorry all.
Mike. Please delete spare posts.
7. You can’t do better than the Daily Mash’s “Whatabunchoflyingbastards-gate” (h/t Coldstone)
From your Africa correspondent: I am a Briton living in Kenya, a country celebrated for its wildlife, beaches, and governmental corruption.
Over the last day I have had several gleeful phone calls from my Kenyan friends: “maybe you guys can teach us a thing or two about corruption”, or “why don’t you send that Brown fellow to be our president, he would fit in perfectly” etc etc. All jokes of course, but they still make me cringe.
As I lifelong Conservative I suppose I should be rejoicing at this latest train-smash, but frankly I just find it deeply embarrasing, and troubling. I am sure that the Rogers on this board will berate me for comparing British and African politics, but the point is that this does not make Britain look good. The FCO, through its High Commissioners, has made great efforts in the past to “help” African governments clean up their act. With limited success, I should add, but at least they try. Episodes like this do not exactly help the case.
O/T - For US Election Watchers…
Huckabee gets a very good poll in Florida.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/11/new_ia_gop_poll_for_florida.html
You can get 20/1 with VC at the moment, though only for £12. Still worth taking though.
From the way in which Abrahams published the contents of the letter from Labour’s chief fundraiser, one gets the impression that he’s not taking all this very happily - and understandably so. Clearly, that means that there’ll be another senior figure resigning their post from the Labour ‘professional’ hierachy (what with Lord Levy’s involvement in the earlier police enquiry, this is becoming something of a trend with Labour fundraisers). The question is how much further the contamination will spread?
Harman’s position must be touch and go. It will be particularly difficult to explain why she accepted money from him after the election finished when others (including her new leader) had turned him down. Was there no communication either between the various campaign teams or between Labour centrally and the campaign teams as to who not to take money from? Presumably not, although that would imply a remarkable degree of risk-running.
Her position is further undermined by being Chair of the Labour Party. If there is to be an enquiry into how Leadership and Deputy Leadership candidates were open to breaches of the legislation without adequate vetting procedures for donations being in place (surely essential?), would not the Labour Chair be expected to have some role in that - even to conduct in in person? The conflicts of interest are obvious.
The bigger problem, as Ed B and Noodle infer in their own ways, seems to be a remarkably cavalier regard to the law from those at the top of Labour when getting a few quid for their party is a possibility. Criminal proceedings will not look good and could follow (which I’m guessing those at the Met won’t be keen to get involved in, for various reasons). Those are ludicrously high stakes for a governing party to play with for just about any reason, but especially for something like this. I wonder whether they actually accepted that those were in fact the potential risks or whether there was more of an attitude that said “it will never happen to us; we are the masters and can do what we like”.
We should hear a bit less about totally legal Lord Ashcroft, eh?
Abrahams on Newsnight was dynamite. Who says Aaron Mendelsohn will take the fall for Gordon Brown and pretend GB didn’t know?
Also why the hell should a Tory be forced to donate money to the Labour party? That’s identity theft and somebody should go to jail.
2 - Roger, I know it isn’t entirely clear what we should make of Mr Abrahams, but on Newsnight he made it sound far from a “silly mistake”. He made it sound very much like he had been advised to give money in this way, ans was sounding very bitter about the way the “fiasco” had turned out. He also seemed determined to draw as many people into the conspiracy as possible.
Frankly I’m absolutely astonished that there are still people who think that Harman’s $10000 is the story!
Quite amusing that the Bbc website doesn’t seem to think the thing is worthy of their front page though
I just can’t help but think back to the collapse of John Major’s government and recall that no matter how hard they tried, they were no longer capable of shaking off bad news (something which Tony Blair became a past master at).
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
In fact, is it just me, or do the BBC seem to have chosen today of all days to abolish their politics page?
After vehemently denying any involvement, the Dunns have suddenly “remembered” that they signed a “blank cheque” for Abrahams….
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2218270,00.html
18 - Odd. It’s their top story (at least on the one beamed to my little laptop!).
But you are spot on about the Mendelsohn-Abrahams connection being the real story, not the Harman diversion, though if her campaign team did actively solicit his financial backing, then it becomes rather more germane.
bbc “we’ll be hearing from John Mendelsohn very shortly”
2/15. Roger’s comment “It’s odd that someone (Abrahams) who claims he wants to avoid publicity should have appeared on Newsnight” perhaps misses the point. The impression I get is not that Abrahams wants to avoid publicity but that he wanted to avoid publicly donating to Labour / leadership candidates. He was quite happy for those who he needed to know, to know - as evidenced by the ‘Newsnight’ letter. For someone who is characterised as he is in Mike’s quote from the Spectator blog in the intro, the question we might legitimately ask is why he was so keen to preserve his anonymity. The innocent explanation would be that he wished to avoid the impression - however false it might be - of any linkage between his donations and his business interests. We might also ask why Labour was so willing to connive in the plan.
Why no mention of Hilary Benns part in this(a model of probity?) Surely his first reaction should have been,when told about Abrahams games, “This man is dangerous- the Labour party must be warned”. What does he do? “Tell Abrahams if he sends me the money in his own name take it then forget it” (a model of prbity?)
Abrahams was use to going to party conferences and was in TB’s going ceremony. He’s a major donor.
Suddenly GB denies he knows him.
Jack Straw ditto,
Abrahams has given all this money and now Labour disown him.
I reckon he’s pissed off with them hence the phone call.. to establish his worth to Labour
19 - That actually makes it worse because it could be construed as money laundering.
After scooping up the Parliamentarian of the Year in the annual Spectactor awards, and the Scottish Politician of the Year award at the annual Herald awards (ahead of one G Brown, who only managed to grasp the subsidiary “Best Scot at Westminster” gong), now Alex Salmond is named today as Politician of the Year in the annual Political Studies Awards, based on nominations received from 1700 politics professors, lecturers and researchers.
Other than “Best Scot at Westminster”, which other awards do pb.ers think that we ought to award Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Des Browne and Douglas Alexander? I would like to nominate Wendy Alexander (Douglas’s sibling in the British Labour Party’s Scotchland Branch) as “Invisible Woman of the Year”.
Nick Robinson getting his Janets mixed up on Radio 4.
What should Dave do at PMQs? I think he should concentrate on judges data and security errors. And also NR. Do not let the governance failures be overshadowed by the political greed.
‘The Harman diversion’ for those of us once of a Labour disposition squares the circle rather nicely. For it was her husband that got Labour into all it’s difficulties with ‘cash for questions’ in the first place.
I think most people found his holier than thou posturing rather sick making at the time and if his wife gets the sack it might show him that sometimes through no ones malice ’shit happens’.
One thing is for certain; if this had really been corrupt behaviour by any important player then they wouldn’t have handled it so ineptly. So it wasn’t. It was an old fashioned co.k up!
29 - Labour have been taking cash for questions as well? Can it get any worse?
11 O/T Why is it that so many of our expats are Tories? I am sure someone a lot cleverer than me will answer that one. For myself, as an ex-expat, I (in Ed B’s words) find that “deeply embarrassing”.
26: I’ll make a joint nomination of Salmond/Sweeney for the all time record number of broken election promises. Its all downhill from here Stuart. All that cash from our friends in the south and they still can’t find any more policemen!
I don’t know why the Tories go on about sleaze in this context. It just makes the electorate remember the Major government and incites the response: you’re both as bad as each other. A far better theme is incompetence, which fits into a pattern of ‘cock ups’ under Nulabour, which seem to be getting worse. I’m still stunned by the idea of a compliance officer who does not make sure he knows the rules of compliance.
Roger raises a good point of whether this dislike of Nulabour can be converted into Tory support. Blair did succeed in creating the impression that his Labour Party was new and pristine. I don’t think Cameron has done this. He does run the risk of anti-Brown votes going to the BNP, the Libdems, the Green and UKIP. Perhaps it does not matter and Tories can win with 40% of the vote. But it is another factor to weigh in the balance when betting on the result.
What about Lord Levy, Tony Blair?
Anyone had ConservativeHomes monthly questionnaire. Loved the question:
“An open question: How should Conservatives tackle the Liberal Democrats?”
33 the word SLEAZE fits nicely into a newspaper headline.
This story gets more delicious by the hour. It’s dynamite.
Half the fun is guessing what’s going to come out of the woodwork next…
31. Tim. Because they’re old fashioned colonialists?
37 - Indeed. The BBC roughed up Geoff Hoon asking him on Breakfast if the enquiry should be conducted by the police. News 24 having fun regularly replaying the Abrahams interview in full.
Mendelson also knew of the subterfuge:- SKY
33 Fernando. “I don’t know why the Tories go on about sleaze in this context.”
Maybe because Labour promised to be whiter-than-white when elected in 1997, and this just shows them up to be hypocrits.
cont…there is one crazy who posts on here called Tapestry who berates the government for allowing immigrants into the UK while he himself lives in Thailand.
38 Roger Could also be Loadsamoney!
Hi Roger - I thought Tapestry was in Shropshire? Perhaps he has 2 (or more) homes??
I would like to tally up those Labour figures whome we KNOW have lied i the ;last 2 days about this:
Jack Starw? Definitely
Watts? Definitely
Gordon I did not know anything Brown?
#39 Hoon’s blink rate was something to behold, almost on a par with HH yesterday.
” Daddy….where were you on the day that marked the end of the corrupt Government of Great Britain ?”
” I remember it well Son. It was the day I was walking near to Downing Street and was knocked over by a crowd of men and women in suits impersonating rats deserting a sinking ship.”
Well, it seems the more times the voters re-elect a government, the sleazier it gets. It took the Tories six years (remember Westland, anyone?), NuLab were into dodgy deals a lot sooner than that (cigarette advertising). But this apparent buying of planning permissions really is about as low as it’s possible to get.
Of course there’s no way back from this mess, and I stand by my prediction that at the next election the numbers of Tory and Labour MPs will swap over, while the LibDems tread water.
Indeed, all that Cameron has to do is to bring in a bill prohibiting public sector unions from political campaigning (it needs to be a manifesto commitment) and he will have prevented any party other than his own from being able to raise enough “clean” funds to campaign effectively.
Gordon Brown is a work obsessive and a control freak. Is it really feasible that he dodn’t know a guy who was regualrly at Labour events and donated hundreds of Thousands of Pounds. Next thing you know, he’ll be telling us he doesn’t look at opinion polls!!
So it was an “open secret”, but HH and GB didn’t know…
Sky: Watts told Mendelson all about it….
Guido wants to be the sleaze-buster
http://www.order-order.com/2007/11/pretty-vacant.html
So who’s going to resign today then? What other nuggets is Mr Abrahams/Martin going to deliver to an expectant media?
I can’t see how this Mendelson chap can survive. That WOULD be a massive blow to Brown, his own appointee turfed out within 5 months. I think Harman’s safe, the media have turned their focus on Abrahams and Mendelson. And Brown…
#50 BBC saying the same Watts told Mendleson last month.
Tim13 @ 31 “O/T Why is it that so many of our expats are Tories?”.
I can only speak for myself but for me the attraction of living abroad is to do with the absence of an entitlement culture, plus the desire not to feel like a tiny cog in a vast machine. I suppose these are Tory tendencies, and there is no shame in that.
Roger and Tim13. Give some thought to the fact that many ex-pats simply can’t afford to live in the UK.
The mistake Gordon made was not inviting more Digby Joneses, and Admiral Wests into his government - Its all those Labour Party ones that are the problem.
Don’t forget that Abrahams seems to have known other well known donors/fundraisers such as Sternberg.
http://www.order-order.com/2007/11/two-gordon-fundraisers-linked-to.html
56 - “A Government of all the talents” - LOL!
I’d forgotten about that one. They haven’t even got a talent for telling convincing porkies any more.
(Will I attract Roger’s opprobrium for my adolescent “LOL” use there?)
Events dear boy events….
54 In Kenya, Ed B?
You sure it’s not to do with living the life of Reilly on sfa?
It is William Blake’s birthday today.
I wandered through each chartered street,
Near where the chartered Thames does flow,
And mark in every face I meet,
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.
In every cry of every man,
In every infant’s cry of fear,
In every voice, in every ban,
The mind-forged manacles I hear:
58 - Well in biblical times a talent was a unit of currency so perhaps they were not so far off!
Gordon Clown……Saviour of the Nation!
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for deciding not to call an Election. In doing so he has saved the Nation from an extra 3 years of him in Office.
I believe he should be the first recipient of the,
“David Abrahams/David Martin Award for Selective Memory.”
I’m still mainly concerned by the narrative: the media have decided for now that the Government is accident-prone, and everything that comes up is fed into that. The Tories are exploiting that to a ludicrous degree to distract from their own embarrassments - e.g. Marcus here accused me of (IIRC) ‘barefaced effrontery’ because I was raising the Ashcroft issue at a time when Labour was taking money from Abrahams.
Well, let’s analyse that. I’m critical of the Conservativ Party for giving the key role in their financing of marginal seats to someone whose tax residence is unclear and who has no reason to decide the fate of Tory candidates except that he happens to be rich. I’m also critical, and consider it an abuse of democracy, that any party should be able to spend *unlimited* sums promoting itself between elections, and I look forward to supporting legislation to prevent this abuse by any party. Anyone here is entitled to disagree - it’s a matter of opinion.
However, Marcus says that because a bloke I’ve never heard of persuades a woman I’ve never heard of to give him a blank cheque to donate money in her name for reasons that we don’t know about, it was barefaced effrontery on my part to discuss Lord A. Why?
Moreover, I know about it now, and continue to believe that allowing unlimited spending is an abuse of democracy.
The Problem for Labour it seems to me, has been caused directly by the obsession with Spin since the 90s. The problem with spin, as practiced so ruthlessly, (of course spin on a lesser scale is always part of politics, always will be) is that is has at its fundamental heart the idea that no situation is too dire if it can be presented in a favourable light in the press. The corollary is that there isn’t anything that can’t be done in furthering the Labour Party’s cause, as long as it can be kept secret or otherwise “spun away”.
The first jolt to this fundamental philosophy came with the death of David Kelly, the second with Cash for Honours, and this could be the final nail in the coffin. Because Labour are now discovering that you can’t undo what has been done in the past, and it is no longer possible to spin the past away.
Those at the top of the party have been unable to distinguish between activities which might play badly politically (for example Ashcroft) with activities that are Illegal. The fact that they continue to equate the two and try to play one off against the other demonstrates this fundamental misunderstanding.
Ashcroft may play badly politically, but the Conservatives are able to calculate that the benefits to them (money and organisation) outweigh any political hit they might take.
Breaking the law is a different matter completely, and there is no political trade-off that can be made in this respect.
64 - No more perfect example and right on cue.
“I can only speak for myself but for me the attraction of living abroad is to do with the absence of an entitlement culture, plus the desire not to feel like a tiny cog in a vast machine. I suppose these are Tory tendencies, and there is no shame in that”
As long as-unlike previous colonialists-you don’t have lots of Kenian cogs as part of your machine……..
42 cont. There is a crazy who posts here with four homes, two of which are in France.
PeterThePunter @ 60. I wish… the standard of living is OK here if you have the money, but on the other hand I have to spend more time worrying about paying for medical care, school fees, security and so on. I spent a year back in England in 1999, and hated every minute of it. Nothing to do with the weather or the tiny houses, everything to do with cultural claustrophobia.
64. Is it fair Nick, that Labour MP’s can post red leaflets and yellow writing funded by the taxpayer. Trying to restrict democratic free speech in a short term plan to try and save marginal seats will backfire enormously. £50k union spending cap methinks.
25 It is only money laundering if the money is of criminal origin. As long as the money was obtained legitimately, there is nothing wrong with person A giving person B a cheque for x amount of money in return for a blank cheque for the same amount of money. It is akin to the way some rich people route charitable donations through solicitors in order to remain anonymous.
Of course, a solicitor wouldn’t have got involved in this one as they would have been aware of the legalities. However, if Mr Abrahams had given money to, say, Oxfam this way, no crime would have been committed and no tax liability would have been created.
64. The media don’t think he’s accident prone - they think he’s an incompetent micro manager with personality defects - as do more and more of the country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/28/do2802.xml
67. Roger is Dave Spart and I claim my 5 pounds.
PtP: I’ve been on retreat for the last few days and this is my first opportunity to thank you for the Australian election tips. Any idea when the Bennelong result is expected?
Nick,
How can you claim any equivalance between breaking the law, which the labour party has been engaged in with respect to these donations and Lord Ashcroft, who gives money, under his own name and legally to the Tories? Thats a very weak position.
You wonder why people think politicians are out of touch, your post above is a classic example of why
71 - lol. One of the “agents” was a solicitor!
64 NickP “Moreover, I know about it now, and continue to believe that allowing unlimited spending is an abuse of democracy.”
Yes it is, and once they get into government all parties use the full resources of the state to further their own propaganda.
However, having said that all parties are guilty, Labour have taken this advantage to new heights, with their allowances to sitting MPs (the majority of whom are their own supporters, of course), paying political advisors out of the public purse, and official government ‘information’ programs that go beyond merely informing and into propaganda.
Government of all the talents - 25K of them will do nicely.
Identity theft is something which we have been warned about for a little while, likewise money laundering, and Nigerian bank account scams.
It is rather odd that Harman’s husband hasn’t had much to say on these donations. If the money is being returned to Abrahams, does this mean that the planning permission at Durham Green is to be revoked?
Any news on the missing HMRC disks today?
Tapestry told me, he’d gone to live abroad for his health.
When troubles come, they do not come singly or in pairs, but in bloody great battalions.
Brown should now announce that he is to call in an independent body, to take over all Labour Party accounts. That Labour Party people will no longer be involved in administering the financial side of the party.
Donations will be scrutinised by this body and will not be accepted unless they are totally kosher.
There must be no link between serving politicians and donations.
If someone offers a donation, they must be directed, to that body and must not be accepted by any Labour Party member.
“Donations will be scrutinised by this body and will not be accepted unless they are totally kosher.”
Unfortunate phraseology, methinks…
Well, Ed, I’ll go with “cultural claustrophobia” as a good reason for living abroad. I have found it very stimulating, and gives you all sorts of angles you don’t see in UK. however, away from the entitlement culture sounds like a Tory invention! If you didn’t have a decent living you wouldn’t be able to make those comments. And as for mirthios’s “can’t afford to live in UK”! yes that does cause me mirth!!
64 Nick P conveniently overlooks Brown’s donor Ronnie Cohen who refuses to clarify his own tax status. Nick P’s attempt to divert attention in this way will not wash. Your party has lost the trust of too many media people.
The real narrative here is that Labour people have become so used to power that their arrogance has led them into many poor decisions and very lax affairs. They were also desperate for cash. Watts preferred to risk losing office than turning down these donations. He reasoned that because others had done this in the past, then he could continue it.
Why did Blair pick two men barely in their 30s to be General Secretary? The job required people with far more experience than they had. They both ended up making terrible decisions over donors and presided over massive declines in memberships.
Brown has repeated this mistake with most of his choice in Ministers.
Overall, a jail term would clean up the party funding faster than any other action.
12. Thanks PtP, I’ve topped up on Huckabee again. He’s now close to evens for Iowa on intrade!
As a reminder, this was the original Frank Luntz story that got me backing him.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5257.html
I don’t like conspiracy theories, but I’ve read that both Luntz and Fox are big Rudy supporters, and for them to push Huckabee in Iowa might have looked like a good way to undermine Romney’s challenge to Rudy. If so, those latest figures showing Huckabee now surging in Florida as well, which is supposed to be Rudy’s key state show it might have blown up in their face.
80
Not intentional!!
On Ashcroft, yes they may be legal, but he is of course ‘Lord’ Ashcroft because he promised to return and live in this country if he was granted a peerage, will he be giving it up now?
Weren’t the CIA a little concerned about some of his business activities in Belize a few years ago?
[64] Nick Palmer wrote of his distaste for someone… who has no reason to decide the fate of Tory candidates except that he happens to be rich - well, I don’t think Mr Ashcroft is deciding the fate of anyone, trying to influence it yes, and so is everyone else who gives money to a political party. And yes, the rich do have a lot more influence than anyone else, and if they have at least as much influence as they did ten years ago, who’s been in charge during those years?
Yes, it is possible to get rich in a squeaky-clean fashion, as J.K. Rowling and the late lamented Anita Roddick did, but they are exceptions. If you want to be rich, it helps to be nasty. As Tony Blair fully understands.
Nick P - I like you, most people on here do. It’s good that you’re around and we like hearing from you. But if you keep on harping on about Ashcroft’s money and how it’s going to cost you your seat, I think the goodwill that exists may get used up. You hardly come to this with clean hands given the vast amounts of public money you and every other incumbent MP gets to bombard your constituents with between elections, plus the union money that floods into your constituency and others. What’s wrong with a level playing field - are you that scared of being judged on your record?
This hypocritical double-standard leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, frankly.
That you - and others in the Govt - are trying to deflect attention away from their own self-inflicted crises by harping on about this “injustice” just adds to that sour taste.
our “save bedford hospital” party has turned down severl large potential donations, from genuine and bone fide donors, simply because we do not feel the need for large sums of money to achieve effective campaigning.
We have accepted people’s time, generously given; that is called participative democracy.
I ask again, why do political parties need all these expensive “wonks” and gurus; politics should not be about money, it should be about simple ideas simply explained
84. Slurs like that will get you in the libel courts.
64. Nick, the abuse of democracy is your communications allowance.
I confess I get very tired of your attacking unlimited spending in between cycles, because you propose to steal the election. You propose to block your opponents from spending money to reach the electorate, whilst you vote yourself eleven thousand of taxpayers money to give yourself taxpayer funded exclusive access to votes.
How can you come on Political Betting and defend your plans to literally steal an election in this way?
A direct question Nick. Have you ever used taxpayer funds to put out a leaflet praising your own work which was done in the red and yellow of the Labour party, and used the exact typeface and design of a Labour leaflet?
Multiple Labour MPs in marginals have.
Seriously, how do you dare advocate making sure incumbent MPs are the only ones who can put out literature between electoral cycles?
Your party is quite frankly corrupt. Using a Tory to give 25,000 pounds to Labour without her knowledge is corrupt. Doing so after cash for honours and apparent reform is corrupt. And now you are losing you want to gerrymander the election.
The proposal to stop spending between cycles but KEEP the propaganda allowance is disgusting gerrymandering and as a Tory in a marginal it makes me furious. Lord Ashcroft’s donations are utterly legal. You can’t raise money legitimately so you are simply going to move the goalposts.
Just received this e-mail - perhaps he would be a suitable candidate for fund raiser or Gen. Secx of the Labour party.
“Let me start by introducing myself.I am Mr. Ming Yang, Director of Operations of the Hang Seng Bank Ltd, Sai Wan Ho Branch, Hong Kong. I have an obscured business suggestion for you.I am here-by seeking your service in giving a clear research and feasibility studies on areas I could invest on. Your services will be paid for, and you will be a partner, if your recommendation is accepted.
As a bank employee, I cannot operate any personal investment till I am retired and with the Anti-corruption Bill passed in Hong Kong; it is risky for a fixed income earner to own any huge amount of money in Hong Kong or any foreign country. It is then advisable to invest in any foreign land secretly and patiently waits for retirement.
You are to handle everything personally and with utmost confidentiality, if my proposal is acceptable as I may not be able to travel down, since I must obtain an official clearance before leaving this territory.Note importantly that, this is a confidential proposal and must be treated as such because the banking sector has commenced probing of all senior banking officials that have served in the past and presently in service”
Should have read: “bombard your constituents with propaganda between elections”
84
I said weren’t they a little concerned, I didn’t say there was anything in it, I’m sure there wasn’t Lord Ashcroft is as pure as the driven snow.
And PS the target seats fund which comes from general donors and not one man comes with no strings attached other than good disciplined campaign mechanics, no political leanings or influence are involved.
64. Good post Nick P. Sometimes the hypocricy on here is so breathtaking it just makes you smile. Some guy who is camera shy gives a few quid to some friends to give to his favourite charity the Labour Party V a multi squillionaire who buys the Tory Party lock stock and barrel with money earned in a tax haven. I’m sure he’d go down well in Kenya.
Simon Jenkins was great on the Today Program
“If you send for a lawyer and a priest it suggests you are on your death bed”
94. And coincidentally gets a planning objection removed?
And one of his “friends” is a Tory voter and knew nothing about it?
95 LOL
If this had not all come out might it not have been Lord Abrahams soon?
64. Its all very well to talk about the Conservatives and Ashroft but what really annoys me is the way Ken Livingston and his use of taxpayer’s money to publish his own pet newpaper ‘the Londoner’ to enable him to spread positive propaganda about himself across London. Hell even Hitler and Stalin’s pet papers, Pravda and Die Sturmer, charged people to buy the newspaper, where as Ken uses tax payers money to have it delivered to every property in the capital.
94. Only in the world of the gauche caviar is 660,000 pounds ‘a few quid’.
96
“Some guy who is camera shy gives a few quid to some friends”
That’s a nice description for a criminal offence.
94 - Roger how much money do you think that Lord Ashcroft has given to the Conservative Party?
How much do you think this “camera shy guy giving a few quid” has given to the Labour Party?
96 - I think you’re behind the curve on the Janet Dunn story, test.
98. Nah, more like Lord PObox7541
103 No am not. She provided a blank cheque but had no idea it was to be used to donate to Labour and said she was “very upset” about it, direct quote. It is indeed simple money laundering. Labour donor without her permission
Nick at 64.
I am dumbfounded. Normally your posts at least make lucid arguments even if I don’t agree I can give you that, but on this you are way off beam.
You can be as critical as you like about the Conservative Party for giving the key role in their financing of marginal seats to someone whose tax residence is unclear, but it isn’t breaking the law.
You go on and on about your rival spending ‘unlimited’ amounts in trying to unseat you; I am sure you have every reason to worry about her campaigning activity but the fact is the costs *are* limited - to what we can legally raise by properly declared voluntary donations.
The main reason the Ashcroft fighting fund exists is to try and neutralise the impact of MP’s ability to self-publicise at the taxpayers expense.
MP’s these days have tens of thousands of taxpayers money to fund professional assistants, a constituency office, IT systems, newsletters, direct mail and so on which they use to promote the ‘good work’ they have done for their constituents; such as mailing a full colour annual report to every voter, every year.
These allowances are not supposed to be used for party political purposes but very revealingly The Times reports “Marginal MPs prove the biggest spenders in review of expenses”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2740546.ece
They were introduced by you, along with the existing funding clampdown and were widely seen as handing a massive incumbency advantage to sitting MP’s.
For you to be complaining about the legal, open and totally voluntary efforts by our party to change the Government (I call this ‘free democracy’) at the very moment when your party is mired in yet another unfolding scandal about breaking funding laws that you introduced is, frankly, breathtaking hypocrisy which I am sad to say just discredits you.
95 - Dave - PLEASE use this one at PMQs!
Please!
Today’s early oward of the OBN goes to post NO. 51
“award”
I have absolutely no objection to Lord Ashcroft using his money to further the aims and ambitions of the Conservative Party.
I do object to the fact that he does not live in this country.
I may have posted this before, (boring) the only people who should be able to vote, belong to, support financially or otherwise, British political parties, are British citizens domiciled in the UK, and those working abroad for a specified period.
If you have left this country to live, emigrate etc, you should no longer be able to take part in its political process.
We had the ludicrous situation a few years ago when a local councillor, (Conservative) went to live in Bermuda (?) and refused to resign her seat, saying she would continue to represent her ward: what nonsense!
Its time there was legislation, preventing these abuses.
Nick P also neglects to mention the scam of state sponsored money laundering - aka the “Union Modernisation Fund” (sic)- whereby millions of pounds of taxpayers money goes to trades unions for pressing issues such as improving their “communications” and - once they’ve had a cosy love in at Warwick University and literally told Labour Ministers what sould be in their manifesto for government - they donate back to the Labour Party, by pure coincidence, almost the same amount of money! All above board, of course Nick, wouldn’t you think?
Adam Boulton: “rumours are circulating which could bring down very senior figures, were they shown to be true…”
89 - to be fair you are misrepresenting Nick’s “proposals”. Nick’s proposals are a bit silly - i think the latest are providing the runner up with a “communications allowance” - what is the point of that if the use of the existing communications allowance is so apolitical? (they’d both say the same thing), but that’s besides the point.
Does Mr Abrahams have a similar vision for Durham that T “Dan” Smith had for Newcastle? See:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northeast/series2/tdansmith_newcastlepolitics.shtml
Perhaps the following extract from the BBC’s piece gives us a clue?
“One of the most criticised Smith plans was for high rise housing. The Cruddas Park housing scheme was part of T. Dan Smith’s grand plan for a ‘city in the sky’.”
Perhaps the centre piece of his Durham Green Business Park development will be a “Harriot Hotel2 or a clocktower called “Little Benn”.
111 - didn’t john howard just run a campaign based on union bashing. Remind us of how he got on?
112 - Ooh the plot thickens.
114. I mean “Harriot Hotel”
Some good news for Labour.
http://kerroncross.blogspot.com/2007/11/big-news-of-day.html
96. Test, you’re a bit behind the times.
The Tory frontwoman (Janet Dunn) who claimed she knew nothing about it has retracted overnight and now ‘recollects’ that she did inideed receive £25,000 from Abrahams in 2003 and gave him an ‘open’ cheque in return.
re 74 IIRC the Australian lower hosue uses AV. The seats must only be the same size as the UK ones so how on earth can it take so long to count them?
The Conservatives have already showed their skill at managing PMQs –two Labour “plants” have the first questions:
Q1. Shona McIsaac Cleethorpes ( assiduous press-the-flesher; counterbalances stoogey Westminster displays with locally appreciated successes” -Andrew Roth, The Guardian)
Q2 Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West):
Then a couple of old Tory buffers:
Q3 Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire):
Q4 Mr Michael Ancram (Devizes):
119 - on reflection i think that is what Test said. “Blank cheque”.
120
so how on earth can it take so long to count them?
They’re Australians!
Nick Palmer is suggesting that it is ok to steal a BMW because your neighbour has a BMW and its “not fair” !
Hard to count with a Stubbie in your hand..
On the Abrahams interview last night on Newsnight there was and probably remains confusion as to why he failed to confirm that he had given money to Harriet Harman’s team. I found it puzzling at the time.
I think this was because the money was not given to her team by Abrahams but by his associate Kidd. I think Abrahams response to Paxman was in the context of the possible legal implications of the case.
This explanation may have been put forward by others here but I haven’t seen it. And of course I could be wrong.
120. Compulsory voting; about 70,000 ballots per seat.
110 Coldstone. As I have pointed out ad nauseam Lord Ashcroft is is domiciled in the UK, he is a registerd UK voter, and he does pay UK taxes.
He isn’t funding the campaign personally, he is in charge of redistributing the funds raised across the party and channeling those funds, using very strict criteria, into selected target seats.
There is no secret about this, he has a book on sale explaining the strategy to anyone who wants to buy it.
re 127 well there are UK seats which have had about 70,000 voters in the past (IOW) and it takes about 7-8 hours to count. Ireland counts the much more complicated STV in under 24 hours.
Have the Tories promised to abolish the MPs’ Communications Allowance? If so, it’s fair game - if not, they should surely shut up about it on here,
130 yes we bloody have
131. Do you have a link for that?
130: The Tories don’t want it abolished just for Labour MPs and ministers to stop abusing it.
112 Rod, Adam Boulton has broken a number of aspects to the donorgate affair.
126 stjohn I think you are right, Abrahams does fear a prosecution. He has also probably got a lot of signed photos with himself and senior Labour people.
126 stjohn - Following your lead, I’ve taken the 16-1 from Hills on Brown leaving office next year, down from 18-1 yesterday…grrh! I’ve decided he’ll survive 2007, but would be a mite miffed if you collected at 80-1. Now that really would be grounds for a name change to stjude!
has anyone else noticed how, as Gordo looks greyer and greyer his artificially whitened teeth look brighter and brighter, making, overall, a most ludicrous appearance; and boy doesn’t the poor chap look peeky. I don’t wish ill of anyone, but I wouldn’t give him life assurance
I took a walk around Nice and on two separate occasions I was approached by young men who handed me a piece of paper saying they were unemployed and could I give them money.
Ultimately this is why Innocent Abroad’s apocalyptic vision of a huge Tory majority won’t happen. People can only afford to spend time worrying about this financial trivia because so many of the social ills of the last Tory governments have now been put right.
And though we’d all like Labour to be whiter than white I for one would hate the country to go back to the rotten state it was in when Maggie was in charge.
Gabble “The Tory frontwoman (Janet Dunn) who claimed she knew nothing about it has retracted overnight and now ‘recollects’ that she did inideed receive £25,000 from Abrahams in 2003 and gave him an ‘open’ cheque in return.”
Yes the silly woman is reported to have said she signed a blank cheque but did not contribute to the Labour party. So Abrahams must have used the cheque to pretend she had made such a contribution?
Even if you ignore the not insubstantial issue of whether the Labour party knew all about this or not, surely several laws have been broken there?
But as Abrahams was well known to the Labour party ( Jay, Mendelson, Watt, Blair, Levy?) it seems inconceivable that the real source of this money was not understood, and if that is proven is that not both likely to lead to charges of accessory and conspiracy?
At the moment the Labour party’s defence is that they were stupidly ignorant of their own laws.
So are they crooks or idiots? Or both?
More bad news for HH
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
136. Yes, he understandably looks like refried sh!te at the moment. However, I think the slightly disheveled look complete with food poisoning victim pallor actually works better for him as it looks more natural. When he puts the make-up on and adopts the carefully coiffured silver bouffant hair style the result is, frankly, the stuff of nightmares.
Short of time so just an umbrella repsonse to the various Tories above. They fall into two categories: (a) you disagree with what I propose for spending limits and (b) you think it’s hypocritical to propose them because of Mr Abrahams.
With respect to (a), we’ve discussed it many times and clearly won’t agree. To answer the specific question - no, I have not sent out anything using the Communications Allowance in red and yellow. I’ve sent a few letters on local issues in black and white, and I’ve done a non-partisan report on my activities. The header is in red (if it makes you happier, I can use blue next time, but then you’ll say I’m passing myself off as a Tory, no?). There is no reference to the Labour Party.
I’d argue that this sort of thing is mildly useful to incumbents, but not as good as partisan literature. However, even if you disagree, it isn’t a sensible position to argue that there should be no limit whatever to spending. If that *was* a reasonable position, then logically we should also abolish spending limits during elections, shouldn’t we?
In response to (b):
* I’m not attempting to equate breaking the law with anything. If Mr Abrahams or anyone else has broken the law which we passed to improve transparency, they should be prosecuted.
* The parallel wasn’t drawn by me, but by Marcus: he was in effect saying that because someone I don’t know has allegedly broken law X, I shouldn’t be talking about reforms to a different part of the system. Nonsense.
* Bob says I harp on about it, test is very tired of it, and Marcus says I go on and on about it. In fact, I’ve not raised the issue recently at all, but Marcus and others challenged me on it after the Abrahams story, so I’ve responded. What do you expect? No doubt if I’d not responded there would have been comments that I’d fallen quiet, had no answer, etc. If you don’t want the subject discussed, don’t challenge me to discuss it, eh?
139 As I have posted here before, several times, someone always knows and someone always tells!
137. Roger, if you thought about your example a bit more deeply you might wonder why France, which didn’t go through a period of Thatcherite modernisation still suffers from many of those economic ills, whereas Britain which did, has to a great extent managed to cure them.
Guido sticking boot into Mendelsohn
http://www.order-order.com/
138. I agree that some members of the Labour party must be either crooks or idiots. They deserve everything coming their way.
However, I don’t accept that you can say the ‘Labour Party’ as a whole is corrupt, especially as it was this government that brought in the transparency laws with which they are currently (rightly) being roasted.
Although I can’t stand the man, my begrudged respect for Tony Blair has only increased after the recent GB rail-crash. Did he know how to keep a lid on ‘events’ and to control the narrative, or what? His combination of charisma, shrewd ‘mea-culpa’ admissions and humour let him get away (possibly literally) with murder. My suspicion is that an awful lot of know-how left No 10 with him - including which donors were on the health list. GB is probably too arrogant to have ensured a proper hand over and his acolytes too impatient to take over for this type of expertise to have been transferred.
Nick Palmer How much have the unions and Cohen and Sainsbury and Abrahams and other donors giving more than 50k pa spent on the Labour party this year in cash and kind, and how much of that has been spent in constituencies?
Thank you for the response Nick, courteous as ever in what must be a tough time for you. I was wrong to assume that your CA leaflets are as bad as those the MP puts out in our marginal patch which are as I described and taxpayer funded Labour leaflets with everything except the word “Labour”. I think you would be embarassed to see them and would at least privately agree they were partisan.
We cannot have spending limits which eliminate our ability to counter these leaflets. It’s stealing an election and can’t happen in a just democracy.
I think Brown should be awarded “the Callaghan” award. An award giving to a Prime Minister, who despite having the upper hand politically, fails to call an election, and is forever haunted by his indecisiveness.
Depending on how he handles such a fact, may also allow him to forward for “the Heath” award, of losing what should have been a victory, disposed as party leader, and cursed to live the rest of his life on the back benches in bitter resentment.
145
Well the following have lied:
Straw Hoon
The following have taken illegal donations: Labour Party, Harman
The following knew about it: Mendelshon
Mendelshon’s boss in the election that never was ?: one Douglas Alexander.
I think on that basis a fair proportion of the higher command are corrupt, liars, incompetent or all three.
I emailed the MP for Blaydon (Ms Kidd’s MP) as follows:
Dear Mr Anderson,
Were you aware that Mrs Kidd one of your constituents had made significant donations to the Labour Party?
Were you aware of the actual origin of these donations?
His reply is a bit frustrating - does anyone here live in his constituency.
Reply from Mr Anderson
“My problem is that as part of the formal Parliamentary protocols I cannot engage in correspondence other than with or on behalf of my own constituents. In this situation, as in many others, that protocol frustrates me, but I am bound by it”
Dave Anderson, MP for Blaydon
I’m sure that there’s a very reasonable explanation to all of this.
Sky: Party Funding Expert, Professor Justin Fisher, “Very serious, worse than cash-for-honours, prima facie evidence law has been broken. Completely implausible they were unaware of the law. Completely inexcusable.”
150. What evidence do you have that Straw or Hoon have lied as opposed to being wrong?
Nick,
Your are trying to draw an equivalance, as the only your response to labour law breaking on this issue, is to bring up Lord Ashcroft, who has not.
The labour response to this has been obsfucate and say “Not me Gov.” Whatever happend to responsibility or are we supposed to believe that Mr Watt was working in complete isolation?
154 They’ve got previous — for example, over Iraq.
141 Nick, in fairness you have at least been consistent in your view that you don’t like people spending money to unseat you and would like to introduce legislation to control what they can do.
Mmmm, why not go a bit further and introduce legislation limiting the amount of press coverage your rival gets - or banning her from speaking publicly at all?
That should do it. You could protect your job forever if you did that and prevent the country from the ‘risk’ that we might one day have a Conservative Government.
It’s a fact that in a free democracy the main opposition party will find it easier to raise more money than unpopular governing parties at the fag end of their time in office.
You benefited from this hugely in the late ’90’s and were able to fund lavish campaigns in 1997 and 2001 on the back of dozens of billionaire donors *and* trade union funding.
It is totally unacceptable for you to try and pull up the drawbridge now that your own position looks so perilous; and people on here and elsewhere can see it for what it is.
154 - I think people are misrepresenting what Straw said. He prefaced everything with “to the best of my knowledge”. Now he may still have been deliberately telling untruths, but in his case the fact that everything he said has subsequently been shown to be wrong does not provide evidence that he ‘lied’.
Gabble It is because these laws are Labour laws that makes the excuse that these insiders did not know the law is so difficult to believe.
It all feels like power corrupting.
I would argue this is very much like cash for Coronets. In this case there are suspicions that favours were given for donations. And this suspicion is enhanced because a well known Labour supporter (who attends lots and lots of events including conferences, who has had rows with Brown’s own fundraiser about Israel) should want to hide his identity.
Why hide his identity? Seems to suspicious people like me that if you want a favour then it could be best policy not to be seen to give lots of money to the party and be recorded in the published accounts. Is this what happened?
As the policy of proxies was accepted under two leaders and two general secretaries there must have seen a reason for it that was convincing enough to keep the scheme going.
So what was that ‘good’ reason? There almost certainly lies the dark and nasty heart of this whole business.
154
Watched TV . They spoke.
Ah, it all makes sense. They fill the prisons to bursting point first, to make sure that they get sentences to serve in the community
O/T - LabourHome appears to be not working. I wonder why.
Sky: Labour Whip (anon) says Mendelson must go…
[148] I feel pretty certain that after the results of the next election are analysed, it will be seen that MPs like our Nick who have used the Communications Allowance responsibly fared no worse than those who used them “irresponsibly”. And that, where boundaries have changed, incumbents did no better in the “old” part of the new seat where they issued the leaflets than in the “new” parts.
Otherwise, people like me whose incumbent MP won’t be representing the ward I live in on the new boundaries could hardly be said to have an MP at all, could they? (It does seem to me to be a defect in the system that he can safely bin all requests he gets from constituents in the two wards he’s losing to the new seat without as far as I can see any comeback. Of course, I’m not for a minute suggesting he does, only that he could…)
146. My feeling is that Gordon Brown does not know and has gone out of his way “not to know” the details regarding party fundraising because he does know that it is an unholy mess. This provides him with some sort of a defence when the deck of cards collapses.
But when he became PM he promised change against the backdrop of the Cash for Honours inquiry which had undermined confidence in the probity of this government. By simply awaiting the findings of a review which does not seem to have made much progress, putting his fingers in his ears and burying his head in the sand, he hopes to have protected himself from the fall out.
But where is the leadership? Where is the change?
Nick Palmer
No doubt your concerns on foreign based donors extend to Lord Paul who backed gordon Brown’s election campaign
“Mr Brown also received another £20,000 from steel magnate Lord Paul, on top of the £25,000 he gave in March.
The Evening Standard earlier revealed Lord Paul does not pay tax on overseas earnings as he is non-domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. His donations came through his firm Caparo, whose parent company is in the British Virgin Islands.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=421783&in_page_id=2
[137] Roger, I think most people felt better off in 1997 than they had in 1992. Didn’t do the Tories much good then.
166
Mendelshon gave Brown’s campaign £5,000 - same link.
144 - sorry, but why should anyone care about what a second rate wannabe has to say on current affairs?
163 I’d be uncomfortable if Mendelson is made a fall-guy. If his version of events is correct he hasn’t done too much wrong.
Who will win the competition that matters at PMQs today ?
The “Shaking Hands challenge” :
Gordon Broon 4/5
Vince Cable Evens
Ming Campbell 100/1
Harriet Harman 250/1
152. You’re kidding!
172 - Look at 152’s by-line
170
I think it’s called acquiescing in a felony..
Since 31 Dec 2006 a company called Bearwood Corporate Services whose ultimate holding company is Stargate Holdings (registered in Belize)has given (in goods and services) £968,491 to the Conservative party.
The company is also listed on the electoral commission web site as giving significant payments (over £250,000) to various parts of the Conservative Party in the 12 months to end March 2006. But, no payments to political parties are listed in Bearwood’s Annual report and accounts.
There is no mention of Lord Ashcroft in the company annual report so it may in fact have nothing to do with him.
But if it is connected to a major donor who wants to be anonymous , isn’t making the payments through a company - that fails to declare the payment in the annual accounts as bad as Abrahams hiding behind other people?
157: Marcus: without mentioning the Lord Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken, can I ask whether you agree with spending limits during election campaigns, and if so why you feel this is different from spending limits outside election campaigns?
test and I have actually more or less agreed on this in the past - have annual constituency spending limits, and curb the CA one way or another. Seems reasonable to me. But you appear to feel that freedom requires allowing spending without limit, the position that has blocked spending reform in the US (where courts have held that it’s constitutionally protected).
69 Ed B
I’ve always enjoyed my visits to Kenya but I’d prefer on the whole to live in a country where you can go for a stroll afetr dark without the assistance of armed guards.
Where are you, Nairobi?
Yes Nick, for the avoidance of doubt, if the CA were curbed spending could be too.
But as the CA isn’t going to be curbed (alas that you are not making the decisions on this) then spending can’t be.
Of the two evils, a financial arms race between cycles is more democratic than only the MP being able to reach voters.
74 His Eminence
Any thanks for tips on the Australian elections should go to Alexander Drake, and one or two others who added their bit. He was spot on, notably with Bennelong. Chris from Paris now has a serious challenger for PB Overseas Poster of the Year.
The final result is unlikely to be in until next week. There is still a mathematical possiblity that Howard could win and he’s entitled to wait until all the postals have been accounted for.
It’s rather more surprising that Betfair has not yet paid out on the other seats which are final, though the amounts are so trifling I can’t too many people are bothered.
176 Spending limits are reasonable, but I think the constituency spending limit should be higher than it is now.
179 - “Chris from Paris now has a serious challenger for PB Overseas Poster of the Year”
I will ask Sarkozy for a snap general election, then !
Anyway there is a strong possibility that Chris(from Paris) will become Chris (from London) as of summer 2008
Can I be the first to say that Gordon had a good PMQ. I think expectations are so low that as long as he doesn’t stand at the despatch box, flap his lower lip and soil himself anything else will be seen as a win.
Coldstone @ 110 “If you have left this country to live, emigrate etc, you should no longer be able to take part in its political process.”
Hmmm - I see what you are driving at but it is a little more complicated than that. Your proposal is arguable for cases like mine (been away for ages, sold my UK house last year, no intention of coming back anytime soon) but what about:
- Gap year students?
- Retirees spending the winter in Spain etc?
- People on expatriate contracts who still have significant assets in the UK and are likely to come back?
- Oil Service workers, mining contractors, private security staff and the like who work overseas in inhospitable places but whose spouse and children remain in the UK.
Trying to enact such a law would create innumerable borderline cases and p*ss off large numbers of people who will indeed be coming back to live in the UK and have every stake in it’s future. This would be a compete waste of leglislative time.
“If the Prime Minister is to recover, as he can and should, then he will emerge stronger. The myth that he was once a magus for withstanding some rain, a micro-outbreak of foot-and-mouth and a terrorist attack that killed only the terrorist was as foolish as the current superstition that he is “unlucky”. After this grim week, nothing else will seem so bad.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/28/do2802.xml
Nick Palmer How about a few facts on Labour finances as I requested earlier?
We can look at previous years (although we now know that the Labour published donor list is at least partly fiction), but how about this year when you were preparing for the-election-that-never-was?
The Times has shown that the unions well outspent individual Tory donors in the run up to the 2005 election, so I wondered about the comparison this year as you seem to think that your opponent has unlimited opportunities to outspend you.
182. A brave prediction !
As an economic liberal and a Conservative frankly I think the concept of trying to limit spending by any campaign at any time is deeply flawed and so on balance I am against it.
The worry about an ‘arms race’ is only relevant if you tack on the assumption that parties that need lots more money basically accept bribes.
Surely the only issue that matters is corruption, if people are giving money to political parties in return for something then that is corrupt and the law must protect that from occurring.
The only other downside of unlimited spending is the probability of boring the public silly during an election campaign but that is a question of taste, not the law.
One more thing, Nick. The No 2 advertising client in Britain, behind Proctor and Gamble, is the Government.
Off Topic Tues Jan 27th Jamaica Gleaner reports
“The Jamaican Government has secured an agreement with the British Government to freeze the deportation of Jamaicans serving time for violent offences in United Kingdom prisons.”
“Prime Minister Bruce Golding revealed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit in Kampala, Uganda, that the agreement was concluded during talks with British leader Gordon Brown.”
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20071127/news/news3.html
But in July Gordon Brown insisted that all foreign criminals ‘will be deported’ and he repeated that in his Conference “tack right” speech.
To quote GB to TB, how can we ever believe a word he says?
My post at 187 was in reply to Nick Palmer at 176, my error.
183 Interesting. For the three weeks before the Aussie election, Rudd’s Labour had an ad in almost every edition of the metro. May have had an effect on some close seats, but with universal voting the effect will be smaller.
In age of mass migration of labour and maybe some close elections and low voter turnout, this issue is going to be an important one.
The West Los Angeles Question?
182-The problem for Brown is that Cameron only needs one good soundbite and the press will love it..
In one of his posts yesterday dear old seanT said:
“The Conservative position is that you should not deceive the people.”
So I wrote:
“Just noticed this. Hilarious. I was born in 1946. So I know.
Hilarious!!”
I think I’ll repeat this post every time I contribute to discussions around here.
I left the Labour Party after 39 years as a member; the party was becoming sleazy when Blair’s crew were taking over, sleazy and un-democratic. The Tories had always been sleazy but when my Labour Party went that way I had to leave. Everything that has happened since appears to have justified my actions.
And this is what we term democracy? Elected dictatorship, I call it, just like the Thatcher years. So there…
I, as always, flatly disagree with Nick on Ashcroft. Lord Ashcroft is entitled to spend his money in the way he chooses, within legal limits; and a constituency-led model of spending raises the local game and encourages greater local activity. Any extension of non-campaign spending limits risks helping incumbents and limiting political strategies of their opponents. Ashcroft-resourced campaigns don’t give a decisive boost to their recipients; I doubt it would have made a big difference in, say, 1997.
The damaging effects of the CA are, I think, overstated, even where the incumbent deploys it effectively - although, if you did have strict extra-campaign limits, then you would have a disadvantage.
If I win the lottery this weekend and give Broxtowe Tories a couple of hundred thousand will Nick stop bleating on about Ashcroft money?
Isn’t the big problem with spending limits in the United States that it has just made the situation re: transparency worse as all these front organisations apparently unconnected with the political parties have sprung up (Swift boat veterans being a well known example)?
If you really want transparency then you can’t have (low) spending limits (ie. spending limits which are too low to give parties in the ascendency an advantage.
I think the best policy to adopt re Nick Palmer and his Ashcroft rants is to just ignore him. He has had the effect he wanted - instead of debating Labour’s current woes, we’re all getting animated about his own particular beef.
Let’s ignore him, he might go back to posting something interesting.
#166,#168 Sir Sigmund Sternberg also gave some money to Brown’s campaign - nice photograph of him standing with Abrahams over on Guido.
Peter the Punter @ 177. Yes I live in Nairobi. Take your point about the after dark strolls, but the weather is nice and we don’t get the same level of racial abuse as in England (we are a mixed couple, me white, she black, the kids in-between).
Also you don’t find so many frothing at the mouth Bolshevik polytechnic lecturers here although, thanks to the internet, I still get a few snide remarks about colonialists etc.
Well, cameron has been gifted another open goal for pmqs
believe brown should try very hard to remain calm, explain what needs to be done in response, take the jibes and jokes on the chin, and he must not under any circumstances start shouting or saying stuff like “i’ll take no lectures”. Can’t say I am fully confident this will happen.
Hello, Sir Ian Blair here.. oh hello Gordon - how’s the wife ? … ah yes the news grabbing football corruption case - coming along… some arrests today you say ?
We’ll I suppose so… yes yes leave it with me…thanks for your support….
188 Sorry mistake on date it was yesterday 27 November Jamaica Gleaner. My error.
199-I don’t know if it matters. Last week, I thought Brown was better than always, but the press didn’t…
199 - I think Cameron will just settle for a few unanswerable questions asking for “guarantees” that X,Y or Z in the Labour party didn’t know about what was going on.
And the rest of the time about Labour introducing thousands of new laws but not expecting them to be followed.
203 (con) - there will also be something completely from left field that catches Gordon completely off guard (I suspect there are whole rafts of policy areas where his briefing will have been neglected this morning).
What do you think Blair and Miliband are spending their time chuckling about over dinner in Annapolis?
I wonder how long before Gordon Puts out the “Vet” excuse in PMQ’s today, after using it at least twice yesterday as in.
Pointing to the early successes of his premiership, Mr Brown added: “I’m really more of an animal diseases kind of prime minister.
“Bluetongue, foot and mouth, H5N1 - that’s really my forte. I know all the names and I’m very good at setting up exclusion zones.
“In fact, some of you are probably thinking, ‘he’d make a bloody good vet’. And, d’you know what? You may well be right.
11 - Well, indeed, but also consider the interference in the SFO investigation of the BAe arms corruption, the back-scratching and porous relationship between senior civil servants nad private contractors/consultants that drains money from the public purse, the many fine luncheons of the former head of the NAO and the NAO’s toothless reports (see Private Eyes), even Ashcroft and his tax-avoidance.
It is sometimes still said that one of the particular aspects of the British sense of identity is the importance placed on “fair play”. The endemic nature of corruption, or practices that at least sail very close to that and clearly break the spirit of what would be considered reasonable behaviour, indicate that, in practise, “fair play” rarely plays any part in our national life.
It is each man for himself and bugg3r anyone else.
206 - Well he did say yesterday that he thought he had done a good job over the summer during the “terrorist outbreak”
181. I wondered why you seemed to be taking a more active interest in this site than previously. Good luck with the move to London.
The papers will have good front pages tomorrow, HH and GB together!
Mendelsohn statement released 5 minutes before PMQ’s. I wonder why.
210 - both resigning together?
207 - As a less grand example, I heard recently of a case where the pay scales were shortened somewhere, with the bottom of the pay scale pulled up to aid recruitment. Some staff recruited on the old payscales consequently had a large pay rise taking them to the new minimum. Apparently, one individual, who had received a pay increase of 7.8% complained to his union about the deal on the basis that a fellow co-worker was receiving a pay increase of 9.3% (with both of them ending up on the new minimum).
I struggle to understand such an outlook so infused with envy, despite such an improvement in one’s own position.
This appears to be modern life in Britain. No sense of what is just, fair or for the mutual benefit of society as a whole. Precious little solidarity.
It would seem that Thatcher won after all.
Or none of them resigning!
Awkward for Cameron because the story is still developing. With so many bodies crowding the penalty box, can he get a clear shot at goal?
My 214 post was in reply for 212!
215 - the police question landed in row Z. Twice…
It’s everyone’s fault apparantly.
Changing sports metaphors, the Prime Minister is playing a straight bat.
Who is heckling? There’s one voice constantly at the back …
Cameron seriously misfiring.
218 - he seems to be blaming that nasty Labour Govt he removed from office in June…
221 - on all 6 cylinders now. Good footage for the news. Hands shaking now surely.
There’s the soundbite. All that matters
217-Worst for Brown is the “involvement” of Mendelsohn
224 - Indeed.
OMG, he brought up Black Wednesday. Desperate.
Labour MP Kali Mountford denouncing Brown for his “hot air” (presumably she meant GB?)
Brown resorts to the irrelevant ‘ten years of plenty’ mantra. No one’s listening Gordon!
Brown resorts to the irrelevant ‘ten years of plenty’ mantra. No one’s listening Gordon!
OHHH, Cable gets the headlines!
Cable far better soundbite than Cameron.
Cable had a good joke.
OMG, he brought up Black Wednesday. Desperate.
Labour MP Kali Mountford denouncing Brown for his “hot air” (presumably she meant GB?)
Brown resorts to the bogus and dishonest ‘ten years of plenty’ mantra. No one’s listening Gordon!
Brown resorts to the bogus and dishonest ‘ten years of plenty’ mantra. No one’s listening Gordon!
Tappers!!
Ancram gets him in the kidneys and that’s a poor answer from Brown.
Vince CabLOLe gets another laugh. People are staring at me in the office.
Apologies for double post, the site is slowww…..
Tappers!!
Tractor output up! Spare parts for combine harvesters up! Right Shoe totals up!
Goodness me the standard of planted questions reaches a new high!
House building targets to rise.
Both Ancram and Tapsell on very good form too. Cameron did what was best in the situation - Cable’s joke was okay (a little contrived though surely? The best part of it was simply the fact that it was a direct insult to Brown’s face).
Mendleson admits he knew http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1294680,00.html?f=rss
I think Gordon is trying to play a pretty straight bat - as someone once observed ‘two whores brawling in public will do none of us any good’. And thats what Cameron is doing. Cable, as usual, best of the bunch……
198 LOL Ed! Pleased to hear you have settled down happily there. I am sure Kenya needs you and people like you and I wish you and your family well.
I stayed in the Norfolk Hotel when on business there and walked into the office each morning, all of 200 yards. Returning in the evening after dark, my colleagues insisted on driving me back - on safety grounds. I protested that they were exaggerating the risk, to which they replied ‘possibly’. I took the hint.
I have a long-running bet with a lawyer friend who was brought up in Kenya. We struck it a couple of years ago. I said the country would in due course pull itself out of the quagmire of corruption and start to make progress economically, as its neighbours Uganda and Tanzania have. No objective measures of this of course, but just on general ‘feel’, who do you think is more likely to collect?
Brwon claims he didn’t know until Saturday, will be interesting if evidence to the contrary exists.
Stalin to Mr Bean…
Matthew, you know many arnt listening to all the blue harpies on here!
238-Very slow!
181 “Anyway there is a strong possibility that Chris(from Paris) will become Chris (from London) as of summer 2008.”
How interesting. Where exactly will you be moving to - Petty France?
Gordon has just said Harriet knew nothing until Saturday yet HH said on camera that she knew on Friday?
Fraser Nelson’s on “What Brown needs to do now” over at the Coffee House Blog.
If you had a serious important worrying issue to deal with on newsnight would you put up to answer questions:
(a) Geoff Hoon?
(b) the man who cleans the lavatories?
Don’t think too hard boys and girls.
It was SO funny after Labour had washed their hands of him that then Abramson came on the phone and read out the crawling letter about future involvement in fundraising he had ONLY just received from Labour HQ.
What a tragedy for the Lib Dems - they’ve found someone who is a great Commons performer, scores direct hits, commands the headlines for the right reasons, has gravitas, knows his stuff, rattles Brown.
What a shame for them he’s not standing!
The Sun verdict:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article518643.ece
I love the way that Labourites on here now have to resort to a standard defence of “Cable was better than Cameron anyway” nowadays, just to give themselves some cheer. I mean, I agree Cable has been fairly decent but Cameron has done exactly, and I do n *exactly*, what has been best for the wider audience, particularly on TV as seen from the last couple of weeks’ coverage. Cable’s line today, whilst amusing, was not something that would have really seemed appropriate coming from someone who is seen, to all intents and purposes now in the press, as the PM-in-waiting.
Still, take succour from what you want!
Hume losing it again on the Daily Politics. He looks unbalanced
Kali Mountford!
Is she the actress from Total Recall?
http://datacore.sciflicks.com/total_recall/images/total_recall_large_03.jpg
The Times’ headline “Funding scandal engulfs Labour” looked great when I saw it in my local sandwich shop just now with the paper rack obscuring the “n” and the “d” in “funding”.
Filling in the blanks produced a far more appropriate headline!
Huhne has just claimed ‘Labour sold peerages’…..and Bradshaw observed that he’s just helped Clegg……hey ho, I’ll miss Cable at PMQs……
252- The Sun agrees:
“Memo to the LibDems: forget your leadership contest and go for Cable”
253 - They are still hedging slightly aren’t they.
Iain Dale asks “How Independent is the Inquiry?”. What a joke!
CarlottaVance: How exactly do you think telling smug boy Bradshaw that he sold peerages live on TV and then challenging him to sue, will lose Lib Dem members’ votes? A vote-winner more like…
252
Agree Cable is an excellent performer and seems to get better each week,bizarre that it seems the ultralight calamity Clegg will be leading this party when Cable is available.
255: I mean Huhne sorry
260-It seems that they still believe that Brown can recover. No decision until 2010!Can you imagine Murdoch supporting a loser?(Cameron or Brown)
So, a total of 600k known so far from Abrahams. Looks like he was buying a “big K” in installments.
Cable got the brilliant line … fantastic, but Cameron had the serious attack. I thought he has fluffed it until the last question - a right good rollocking for the news! Brown assured but he’s on a losing wicket. Did the best job of a bad situation. Gold stars all round!
Peter the Punter @ 244 You don’t work for the BBC do you? Their office is just round the corner from the Norfolk and happens to be in the same building I am sitting in right now.
I think you will win your bet eventually, but it might take you 5 - 10 years to collect. The problem is that while the business world here is fairly clean and there is a good size cadre of thirty and forty-something Kenyans who have been educated overseas and like to do things properly, these same people would never dream of sullying their reputations by going into politics. This is because the political classes are unbelievably venal, and the good guys don’t want to be associated with it. Unless and until this changes, politics will remain a cesspit and the country will succeed despite and not because of its leaders.
BBC couldn’t get a Labour MP on Camera, heads all hung.
262. MBoy…..it hasn’t exactly got ‘gravitas’ written all over it, has it? Can you see Ming being so maladroit? Or Charlie fumbling like that? I think many Lib Dem voters are not as excitable as some of the posters on this board - they see themselves as serious, decent people, who don’t gratuitously slander other parties live on air. Hasn’t got ‘Next PM’ written all over it. But as I (and others) have observed before - its a pity they can’t both lose.
Thought Harriet at PMQs looked as if she had bitten into a sour apple and found that she had swallowed a maggot.
Is 249 true? Could be damaging.
Much as I like Gordon, I also wonder if it’s sensible to say, even in jest, that he wants a day off when he needs to appear a strong leader…
It would be quite amusing if somebody in Labour actually took Huhne up on his challenges to sue. Of course he’s going to have to name a name first…
Huhne claiming he’s sent (last night - they haven’t got it yet) a letter to the Met demanding an inquiry into the funding issue. Very Statesman-like.
When is the next poll?
274 - Unfortunately it looks as though Huhne has lost. He is sounding a bit desperate.
When is Nick going to appear to say that Cameron fluffed it and how much the Labour MPs enjoyed it all?
Thought Cables line about Mr Bean was great. I would not want to be meeting The PM this afternoon!
248- PtP - More details will follow when available.
275: YouGov’s one is due this week, so Friday or possibly tomorrow if it’s early, MORI’s could pop up any day.
Absolutely. A true statesman would ignore corruption, stick their heads in the sand and pretend party funding is entirely honest.
Pretty much like the House has done since the days of DL-G.
276, yes, that would be my conclusion from the betting perspective. 2/5 Clegg may be becoming a bit tasty?
#272 I rewatched the footage from Channel 4 News a couple of time - Harriet said Friday.
281 - never mind that, get on the 4/7 with Victor Chandler!!! Astonishing price.
CarlottaVance: LOL - keep spinning there!
279-Thanks Anthony!
282 & 272. Did Brown definieely say that HH knew on Saturday ? Yesterday Harriet said she knew on Friday, and Brown was saying HE knew on Saturday.
185: I can only speak for the position in Broxtowe. Union funding here is, and always has been, very limited: the only significant amount is currently a £1500/year grant from Amicus to the CLP. But in any case the issue is spending, not funding - I refer you to our debates on N previous threads.
197: thanks, Marcus, that’s an honest statement of a consistent position. However, the reason that spending limits during campaigns are there is that it’s always been felt by most people undesirable that rich parties (for whatever reason and from whatever source) should be able to gain an advantage in political debate purely because they’re rich. I’m happy to leave the issue there for the moment unless you want to pursue it further.
276. How can he, I’ve already voted for him & I’m 100% for leadership contests!?
287 - Surely if you put spending limits on outside of campaigns then all that will happen (aside from the rise in front organisations) is that we revert to the days where people are referred to as “prospective parliamentary candidates” and are basically allowed to spend whatever money they like?
289 - * or whatever they used to be called.
At the end of the Brown Vs Cameron exchange the BBC commentator said that all the noise was made by the Conservatives and the Labour MPs were quiet and looking downcast.
PMQs is about 1) MP morale and 2) soundbites.
Both of these went against Brown, again.
You would also have to find a way to distinguish between funding of parliamentary candidates and funding of council candidates.
279-One more thing, what do you expect from the polls?
Where’s Ave It today, out of interest?
Still smarting over Watford’s result last night, I wonder?
(The Clarets fan asked smugly…)
I’m no LibDem but I thought that was a very impressive performance by Chris Huhne on The Daily Politics. He might not be as “pretty” as Clegg but he seems to have considerably more substance and ability.
Huhne’s on Sky News now saying there’s no way Brown didn’t know about these huge donations from Abrahams. I think we all suspect that.
Can I just say that Vince Cable’s line was fantastic. From Stalin to Mr Bean, bringing chaos out of order!
Just why is he not standing? He is clearly very good. Head and shoulders above the two who are.
295 - Where’s Clegg then?
I’d be perfectly happy to go into battle with a Huhne led party, with Clegg my vote will be up for grabs and I will have to be convinced that the government are being attacked effectively.
Where was the representative for the Tories both before and after PMQs, on The Daily Politics. Not content with this imbalance, the biased BBC actually decided to have two Labour representatives on for good measure.
Not that it mattered greatly in the end as this was largely cancelled out by thye ranting Hattersley making such a total fool of himself.
What is it about Cable? My wife (whose interest in politics is somewhat less than my interest in the Polynesian nose flute) seems to have become mildly besotted with the old boy. She always tells me if he has been on the radio (which seems to be rather often) and, even more unusually, she can tell me what he said. Does anyone else think he is a good communicator?
I have to say that people might start getting bored with the press if they keep up their hysterical tone. The worst that the Labour party has been accused of is reieving some funds which were received via a third party, who we now know cosented to Anderson doing so. This might be a technical breach of electoral law but it hardly qualifies as a major scandal. There is no question, except from conspiracy theorists like Paul ‘Blair in chains by May’ Staines, of any quid-pro-quo in return for the funding. There is also no disputing that Mr Abrahams is a tax paying citizen of the UK who is perfectly entitled to donate to the political party of his choosing.
Whereas the leadership destroyed IDS, Campbell and now Brown, I feel that Cable is one of those people who has blossomed in the job. He’s doing an impressive job - well done him.
298 PtP
You forgot the THIRD Labour representative: Nick Robinson
300 - conveniently ignoring the planning application by the man behind the “front” donors, which got mysteriously waved through…
298 Don’t worry about it, PtP. What you saw was a Government loyalist and a spokesman for the emerging opposition. The factions within the Labour Party are going to be at each other’s throats before to long.
Re 299, Augustus Carp, “Does anyone else think he is a good communicator?”
Yes, I do. Actually I have been impressed.
300) So why does he disguise his payments?
I’ve never wanted to get into frontline politics, but to stick in the background and the Huhne/Bradshaw spat is the reason why.
If I had been Huhne, Bradshaw would now be nursing a very bloody nose and I would be just so embarrassed.
I have to say it would be a laugh if Bradshaw (who I assume is the only one who could do this) tried to sue for slander. It is difficult to believe that going for the balance of probabilty, rather than beyond reasonable doubt which way the result would go and that is assuming he could claim he was personally slandered.
287, Thanks. One last question Nick; have you always believed in restricting the inter-election spending of PPC’s; or is this a fairly recent issue that has worried you?
I mean, did you ever raise the question or campaign for limits *before* you got elected as an MP?
I did have to laugh at Cable’s “Stalinist control-freak to Mr Bean” comment, but is there a danger here for the Lib Dems:
As Ming was such a poor performer at PMQs, a monkey on a chain could have taken over the Lib Dems and still be seen as an improvement. But, having seen Vince Cable’s performances during the interegnum, Huhne or Clegg will now have a much harder act to follow and is there not the possibility that if they don’t at least match him, they will instantly be written off as poor performers themselves?
308 - checkmate Marcus…
299 Cable is excellent on the economic issues as befits the former chief economist for a major oil company. I doubt he is as strong on other issues though. What has really done for him however is his age and appearance. Sadly the supeficial nature of British politics demands a younger, more telegenic model. The LibDems don’t want another Ming on their hands.
As for Clegg and Huhne, the latter is head and shoulders in terms of real substance and ability IMO.
I suggest whoever wins the LD leadership contest has a “flexible rota” for PMQ. Why should it always be the leader taking the main Party slot. We could then continue to have the benefit of Vince’s skills and other talents as well as the leader.
Huhne is just flailing about wildly taking pot shots at anything that moves in the hope that he hits something. He’s not exactly one for clinically dismantling the Govt’s position. Any basic study of the history of scandal shows that you start at the bottom and work upwards one step at a time. Once you’ve compromised one person you move onto their direct senior. In the perfect scenario you move all the way to the top.
Going straight for the worst possible interpretation, and straight to the top, never gets anywhere because all the necessary evidence built up at the lower levels never gets discovered.
You also need to start at the lower levels, because those at the lower levels will never reveal anything unless their own position is in danger - at which point they start to sing.
Re 307 KJH, “I have to say it would be a laugh if Bradshaw (who I assume is the only one who could do this) tried to sue for slander. It is difficult to believe that going for the balance of probabilty, rather than beyond reasonable doubt which way the result would go and that is assuming he could claim he was personally slandered.”
What happened? Who said what?
302 Voxpop
It is no disgrace to be confused with the eminent Peter from Putney, but if you do it one more time, you will be hearing from my lawyers.
314 I agree with your domino method of attack so why were you asking me to lay off Margaret Jay and Harriet Harman yesterday then?
Nailing them alongside Mendelsohn brings us much closer to the Evil One himself.
Re 309, Graeme “As Ming was such a poor performer at PMQs, a monkey on a chain could have taken over the Lib Dems and still be seen as an improvement. But, having seen Vince Cable’s performances during the interegnum, Huhne or Clegg will now have a much harder act to follow and is there not the possibility that if they don’t at least match him, they will instantly be written off as poor performers themselves?”
Agreed. Hopefully they will fail and Cable can take over. He is good.
313: Whatever Huhne reason has for doing it the ‘you sold peerages and sue me if you’re hard enough’ is a good ploy. As labour are unlikely to take legal action it is an open goal.
309-”is there not the possibility that if they don’t at least match him, they will instantly be written off as poor performers themselves?”
In my opinion, yes
304 And as for you, Crap, I would expect something a little better from PB’s Master of Pedantry.
Grrrr….
316
LOL Sorry about that. In my excitement I’m getting my PfP’s mixed up with my PtP’s
Hello All,
I wonder if anyone is investigating the Midlands Industrial Council and its membership:
Sir Anthony Bamford - JCB
Bob Edmiston - IM Group
S. Hollis - KPMG
G. Campion - Deloittes
J. B. Pettifer - Pettifer Group
A. Gallagher - Gallagher UK
R. Richardson - Richardson Developments
K. Bradshaw
John Butcher
R. E. L. Smith - Techtest
Chris Kelly - Keltruck
J. D. Leavesley - Leavesley Group
J. W. Leavesley - Leavesley Group
Lowe & Fletcher Ltd
P. Shirley - Midland Food Group
D. J Wall
R. Robinson
K. Jaberi - Karins Catering
T. Miller - Harris & Sheldon
M. Miller - Harris & Sheldon
G. Hampson Silk - Hampson Holdings
C. Folkes - Folkes Holdings
David Cameron asked at PMQ’s
“Aren’t people rightly asking now, is this man simply not cut out for the job?”
I have certainly been asking if Gordon Brown is not cut out for the job. How about you, Voxpop? Have you been asking that too? Are we the people again?
317 - I wasn’t. Wrt Jay, i was pointing out that your claims that she was “finished” were ludicrous because she is a non-ministerial life peer so has nothing to be “finished” from.
And this issue with Harman (one £5000 cheque) was an irrelevance because it had nothing to do with the main event.
322 LOL! I was only joking, of course.
PfP and I discussed the problem at the PB Party and decided to leave the names as they are. We’re fond of them and the confusion is sometimes useful as well as funny.
323 - on what grounds?
Re 319, Raplh, “313: Whatever Huhne reason has for doing it the ‘you sold peerages and sue me if you’re hard enough’ is a good ploy. As labour are unlikely to take legal action it is an open goal.”
Huhne fundamentally misunderstands libel law.
If A makes a defamatory statement about B, and B sues, B does not have to prove he is not guilty of the what ever the remark was, merely that it is defamatory. A has to prove the truth of it (unless he is relying on fair comment etc). So unless Chris Huhne has the police file, he can’t back up his claim and would inevitably lose such a case.
That said politicaly Labour would be suicidal to take it on.
323 - Pitiful. At least get an up to date list. John Butcher died several months ago.
323 Why? Have they made illegal contributions to a political party?
Re 323 Redflump, “Hello All,
I wonder if anyone is investigating the Midlands Industrial Council and its membership:”
No!
Bad luck.
In the last 3 days I’ve witnessed Dennis McShane MP, Nigel Griffiths MP, Roy Hattersley, and Ben Bradshaw MP, all make complete @rses of themselves live on TV or radio.
Who will Gordon be wheeling out next to try to defend his shattered reputation I wonder?
Kinnock? Mariella Frostrup? Coco the Clown?
It’s all got the smell of a discredited and dying government about it. Another two years of this lot? God help us.
Nick Palmer I do indeed remember what you said about your constituency and union funding, but my question was about the spending in this year in constituencies and the total donations from unions, Sainsbury, the unforthcoming Cohen, the shy Abrahams, the non-domiciled Lord Paul and others.
In a build up to an election you will agree that spending will have increased.
We know that some Labour MPs misused their communication allowances and were sanctioned for it, and that was in that pre-election-that-never-was period, and the unions were talking big about financial support, and a new General Election co-ordinator and fund raiser were appointed. So it seems inconceivable that a lot of money did not wash about constituencies in support of Labour MPs and candidates, doesn’t it?
So could you give us a briefing, even if only in very general terms, on what was raised and where and when it was spent. It is worth your getting the facts as even your amazingly relaxed constituents may soon start asking those sort of questions. Let alone the press pack.
Peter the Punter is a well-heeled Tory from SW London while Peter from Putney is veritably a Mighty Fella. That’s how I always remember them.
Re 328. Huhne said that every labour donor of £1m or more was now either knighted or elevated to the peerage. Can we check this statement and list all the £1 plus donors?
328 - You can’t libel a political party. That is why Huhne has to name names.
335. Sorry £1m of course
324 I’ve been asking that constantly MM. I even ask myself it in my sleep. We are the people and the people have spoken:
“GORDON, IN THE NAME OF GOD GO!!”
238: Benedict, my point is not that Huhne would have an easy time proving his case but that it would be stupid for Labour to take legal action against him.
The discovery stage would be interesting.
Assinder has good analysis of PMQs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7116866.stm
Fortunately for Labour, its generally the Tories who ‘only ever panic in a crisis’
Who made Ashcroft a Lord and what for?
Cable has been very, very effective. Ming’s problem wasn’t his age, but his communication style. The way all that was reported created a climate of whereby anyone of a certain age feared they’d be derided too. It just shows you can never quite tell in advance how people will perform in that role.
Dromey has finally spoken, and basically said he wont be saying anything.
Re 335, Goulipon, “Re 328. Huhne said that every labour donor of £1m or more was now either knighted or elevated to the peerage. Can we check this statement and list all the £1 plus donors?”
? I am not sure that is correct. Many thanks though.
What did Bradshaw say?
334. The other way round surely?
344. Benedict - Sorry I did not watch the earlier part of “the Dailt Politics”.
Re 336, Alex, “328 - You can’t libel a political party. That is why Huhne has to name names.”
I appreaciate that is probably the case, but where is it written?
Re 339, Ralph, “238: Benedict, my point is not that Huhne would have an easy time proving his case but that it would be stupid for Labour to take legal action against him.”
Granted.
“The discovery stage would be interesting. ”
Yes it would.
334 Well-heeled? I’ll have you know I buy my shoes on eBay.
It’s interesting that those on here who I sense are leftish tend to Clegg and those who I’d say are on the right go for Huhne. And I don’t think it has anything to do with the advantage or otherwise that it gives to their own first preference party.
I think Huhne is mote authoritarian which is always the first love of a true Tory whereas the softer pinkos tend to the kinder gentler Clegg.
335 - Try here
345 comments. Cor. Is this a record? Does this page explode at 400? Gissa break, boys n girls. I have to get back to my life and my addiction to this page is starting to worry me. But fortunately not too much
Lakshmi Mittal was never Knighted.
349. Roger - so New Labour is truly another Tory Party!
Re 346, Goulipon, “344. Benedict - Sorry I did not watch the earlier part of “the Dailt Politics”.”
Ah well…
343 - Actually just seen the thing rather than hte ‘breaking news’ and he has said about high standards in public life. Just as he got in his car he muttered ‘complete concealment’. Wonder what he’s thinking?
334 Erm…Senior Moment there, John O?
The Labour Party have a visceral hatred of Huhne and will be hoping for a Clegg win.
349 Huhne has the potential to be a heavyweight while Clegg is always going to remain a lightweight.
However, when all’s said and done, it’s only Cameron who can rid us of the scourge of Brown at the next election.
Just a though if a ‘big beast’ like HH resigned now that would kill the story in a few days.
How about this:
All contributions to political parties are banned unless they come from ‘individuals’ on the electoral register.
Payments may not be made through third parties.
Any person may contribute up to £5000 to a national party and up to £1000 to local parties each year.
Party membership fees and fund raising events (raffles, jumble sales, etc) are excluded from the £5000/£1000 limit, but must not exceed £250 in any year from any one person.
Candidates may contribute additional funds during their campaign up to a maximum of £5000 (European, Assembly, Westminster), £500 (Local elections).
A limit of £10,000 on campaigning outside of elections per constituency per year specifically covering posters, leaflets, canvassing costs etc (might need to add to this, but I don’t want to exclude genuine constituency work, but that which is primarily aimed at attracting votes)
A limit per voter during elections as now exists.
Nationally parties can spend what they like on their broadcasts, office, tv appearances etc but any spend which can be identified as applicable to a certain area such as billboards, letters etc must be allocated to the limit applicable to the area this billboard is erected or letter goes to.
The allowance given to MPs to communicate with the electorate must not be used to produce literature containing party colours or emblems or party names. It must refer only to the activities of the MP in relation to local issues or national issues affecting the local area. It must not name or show pictures of local election candidates. It must not go out 3 months before or during local elections. It should concentrate on giving feedback to the local population useful information and not contain party political propaganda in any way. [I suspect that definition is either full of holes or unworkable but you get the idea]
Wonder what Labour have done with the £2m received from Mittal this year? Perhaps Nick P could tell us?
323 this is the heart of the matter. Like 5 year old children many Labour party members seem not to grasp the essential difference between legal and illegal behaviour.
There clearly should be special provision whereby Labour Party members are exempted from obeying their own laws as Doli incapax applies as it does for children.
therefore whenever we are told by a Labour member that so and so is a person of the highest integrity - conclusive presumption comes into play.
“presumption of law that cannot be rebutted by evidence and must be taken to be the case whatever the evidence to the contrary. ”
this would put an end to all these distracting questions which are preventing the Vision from being delivered.
52 Does Lakshmi Mittal have a British passport???
349 Roger - this is, of course, exactly the opposite of how their individual political stances are perceived!
345 - Another foray into ‘humour’ bites the dust. I’ll stick to the day job that I don’t have
349. I suspect its more of a reflection of whether you are SDP or old liberal. If Clegg wins I will be disappointed but I will accept it and hope he will surprise me by proving my assessment of him is wrong.
335. I would imagine that’s correct. And when you include the Tory appointments notably Archer Ashcroft and Black-not to mention that Scottish non-resident donor- you rather wish the whole edifice would come crumbling down
362 - See 65.
359 - for story read ‘labour electoral prospects’
283. AARON.
Great spot. I managed to get on Clegg to what they would allow at 4/7. Now 2/7. I’ve also just backed Clegg at 2/5 with Hills. I agree Huhne is starting to look a bit desperate.
This has been a bad market for me, having backed Cable and Kennedy as my lead in contenders. Then Webb, Huhne and Goldsworthy! Thanks to some judicious price hunting on Clegg, assisted today by your VCbet spot, I am crawling back out of a poor red position. Still the wrong side of the ledger but now pretty modest losses.
Thanks for your assistance!
343-I’m impressed, he said eveything we need to know!
359 Not according to the domino theory. Another one bites the dust, now who’s next!
365 Know what you mean John O, my eBay joke at #348 didn’t exactly bring the house down either.
The last point in the Assinder piece is interesting. The cash-for-honours business at the end of Blair’s reign, whilst never proven, must have been a niggly irritant to the whole party because it provides one of those annoying, unanswerable catch-all come-backs against almost anything the party tried to say. Many devout back-benchers must have thanked God that Blair’s departure must surely bring that side of things to a close - brand new PM, brand new integrity.
But the fact that this type of accusation has come back again, albeit in a slightly different form, must just be hugely disheartening more than anything else - another few months of questions and cynicism on the doorstep rather than the clean slate. I imagine that, though they don’t blame Gordon, there must be some unrest in the House. Nick P care to confirm?
Doesn’t Huhne sound a bit silly going on about due diligence and “always checking that you know who a donor is and they check out”?
365 Oh. It was a joke.
373 Did you not say you were moving, PfP.
Please not Pimlico.
Fifth “donor” about to be revealed.
377 - I believe he’s moving to a small village called Ponthir, just south of Pontypool… http://www.multimap.com/maps/?hloc=GB|punter
BTW it was an interesting choice of words that Abrahams used yesterday. He said he had a conversation with Watt whereby he said that “he knew of people who would be interested in donating to the Labour Party (ie. the ‘agents’) and he would ensure that donations from them would be forthcoming”
Sky reporting that Labour MPs are calling Dromey “an incompetent Treasurer” for not knowing what is going on.
VoxPop. Did you really say you were a Labour member in 1997 but left after you got fed up with Blair? Or did I misunderstand. You seem so totally Tory it’s hard to imagine you had a previous life as recently as eight years ago!
Roger i think you need to distinguish between “Tory” and “anti-Labour”. I would have thought it was a distinction you could understand considering your own objection to being called pro-Labour (when you maintain you are simply anti-Tory) but obviously not.
I see Janet Dunn has just remembered that she did write a cheque for 25K. Hmmm she’s a Tory voter isn’t she?
Benedict - Sorry wasn’t ignoring you just taking ages writing my bit above and then had to do some work!
In a very small nut shell Huhne was going on about cash for peerages and Bradshaw accussed him of slander so Huhne said go on sue me.
Daft because he didn’t actually identify a person who could claim to be slandered and anyhow anyone taking Huhne to court over cash for peerages would be just wonderful publicity for Labour wouldn’t it as well as them almost certainly losing!
That happened yesterday, coldstone. She had 25K deposited in her bank account and was told to write a blank (name) cheque.
370. I think Cable and Kennedy would have made a good combination as Leader/Deputy Leader. Alas, it won’t happen. Clegg or Huhne will do okay, but things could have been much better.
Why is there so little media focus on Tory funding? A lot of the written press is hardly in love with young Dave, but they aren’t prepared to investigate who’s signing his cheques. One of the things Blair managed in the 90’s was to portray sleaze as a ‘Tory’ thing, whereas he looked clean in comparison. Despite the refusal of the media to take him to task, there seems to be a latent view that the Conservatives are not really very different to New Labour. Pewrhaps why they can’t get above 40%.
386 (con) because it was a blank cheque she hadn’t originally made the connection to donating to the Labour Party.
Ben Brogan
“Vince for leader
Vince brought the House down with his line just now on Gordon Brown’s “remarkable transformation in recent months from Stalin to Mr Bean”, who now creates “chaos out of order”. He went on to ask a couple of pointed questions about Mr Brown’s pained relations with the military. A colleague tells me he writes his own lines, and even that one of the Lib Dem leadership candidates now privately jokes “Vince for leader”. Given the shambles that is the Clegg and Huhne panto, how long before the Lib Dem grassroots lanch a “Draft Vince” campaign? His performance so far more than justifies it.”
“Why is there so little media focus on Tory funding?”
You’re kidding, right?
Nail on the head re Dromey
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-point-of-jack-dromey.html#links
“What is the point of him remaining in position if he hasn’t got a clue what is being done in his name? He’s proved that he can’t impose systems to stop this sort of thing happening. He ought to resign”
Jack and Harriet, the Dumb and Dumber of the Labour party.
389
Vince Cable has been very impressive throughout the whole of this mess, shame he isn’t running.
Re 385, KJH, Many thanks!
Re 389, Test “Given the shambles that is the Clegg and Huhne panto, how long before the Lib Dem grassroots lanch a “Draft Vince” campaign? His performance so far more than justifies it.””
Agreed. It would be good for politics as well.
391 - One out, all out?
Nick Palmer’s intervention in Vince Cable’s speech gets the point of the matter of Databases - parts should be restricted -no one should be able to look at or download some fields.
Don’t think Vince quite got it Nick but if you would wish to join the Liberal Democrats your expertise would be very helpful.
I know I asked some time ago and was rebuffed, but wondered if the “Stalin to Mr Bean” gag might have swung matters for you?
Benedict @ 347: Goldsmith and Referendum Party -v- Bhoyrul and Others (1997) extended the precedent that local authorities couldn’t sustain a claim for libel to cover political parties. The judge ruled that it would be an unacceptable fetter upon free speech if political parties could use the threat of writs to silence criticism.
The case in question was Sir Jammy Fishpaste suing the Daily Mirror for libelling the Referendum party by (if I recall correctly) claiming that the Referendum party was lying to its supporters.
389
I repeat my assertion the LibDems are brilliant at often choosing exactly the wrong leader.
Good Afternoon All.
I note another poll in Iowa shows that Mrs Clinton has lost her lead and is tied with Mr Obama @ 29% with Mr Edwards still in the hunt.
http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_112807.htm
I think there was some suggestion that Cable was thinking of standing down at the next election. Could be mistaken though.
390. No Alex, I’m not kidding. Very little attention is being paid to how the Tories are raising money.
Re the BBC interview of David Abrahams by Jeremy Paxman:
“Just as a matter of curiosity why did you back two candidates in the Deputy Leadership?
I backed Hilary Benn.
Oh you didn’t put up the money for Mrs Kidd to give to Harriet Harman?
I backed Hilary Benn.
Did you give Mrs Kidd money to give to anybody?
I’ve just answered your question Jeremy and I think you should be satisfied with the explanation I’ve just given you.
I just want to be absolutlty clear about this. If Harriet Harman received any money from Mrs Kidd….
I don’t want to give any inaccurate statements on this particular issue. I gave Hilary Benn a cheque, direct… in his hand for which he thanked me and that as I say was my prefered candidate.”
This strikes me as odd.
We’re all assuming that the money that Mrs Kidd gave to Harriet Harman came from David Abrahams who wanted it transfered. Perhaps:
1. Mrs Kidd gave the money to the wrong person, so David Abrahams corrected this himself by presenting a cheque to Hilary Benn
or even
2. Someone else used Mr Kidd to send money
388
The latest is that she now remembers it was a ‘donation’ so it looks like it wasn’t a blank cheque. Think she’s been overdoing the Wincarnis.
349 Well, Roger, I had never thought of myself “on the right” ofthe party, and I admit I would prefer other candidates to have stood, but I am certainly veering towards Huhne. As for claims about ex-Libs and ex-SDP, I can assure everyone outside the party that that makes hardly any difference to attitudes to anyone or anything these days. There are much greater differences between individuals who were ex-Libs (or SDP) than there ever is between the groups. Newer members who have joined the Lib Dems in the last 5 years or so, otoh, are somewhat different.
Re 396, Anthony, I see, many thanks.
In which case the Labour party is a scum sucking pile of poo!
400 - Which particular thing do you think should be investigated?
401 ab
HH got her cheque AFTER the election so 1. does not work.
382 Roger.
I was a Labour Party member and activist throughout much of the eighties and a Labour voter up to and including 1997. Since then disillusionment with Labour has turned to disgust and I would now vote for anyone who could remove this shower of sh*te from government.
What I can’t understand is that there are still a few people like you around still willing to make excuses for this odious bunch.
ps I’m not a Tory though I will be voting for them in order to get Brown out.
393. An effective leader has to be much more than just a good performer at PMQ. I repeat my suggestion the new leader recognises Vince’s talents and invites him to take the main Party slot on a “flexible rota” basis shared with other leading LD front benchers.
Who is this silly Kali Mountford person?
383. I know I do and it’s a habit I’m trying to lose. Unfortunately It seems like only yesterday when the biggest realistic insult you could throw at someone was to say ‘You’re a Tory!’ with a slight question mark in your voice as though you’d just exposed the collaborator in ‘The Great Escape’!
409 Labour MP for Colne Valley (W Yorks).
Off topic but just how good did Jenny look on The Daily Politics in that mini skirt and boots combo?
412
Did you type that one-handed?
411 - Yep. Particularly high calibre I thought
It really is shocking hearing virtually every Labour MP (I accept Nick P knows a bit more about it even if he’s wrong) dismiss criticism of ID cards and the link with HMRC, simply by shouting the word “BIOMETRIC!”
411 - for now…
412 - any chance of a screengrab for those of us stuck at work?
409: MP for Colne Valley (and part time Louis XIV impersonator)
Louis: piccy
Kali: piccy
The fact is labour are now toast. The old saying that opposition parties don’t win elections, governments lose them is so true. Nulab is like an old firework fissling out fast. They are on a downward spiral that will be nigh on impossible for them to recover from.
Lol voxpop. Sadly I don’t have one Bob 415, but if anyone can oblige I too would be most grateful.
416 - very good.
403. Tim13 - I agree but I would suggest there is a difference in approach between the “purists” and the “pragmatists” shall we say. If you have better way of expressing the different ways the groups concerned express themselves I would be pleased to hear it.
From the Times : “Brown savaged in Commons over sleaze”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2959161.ece
414 - They need to read the following:-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/27/biometrics_not_magic_bullet/
421 “[Mendelsohn] said that he had checked with Peter Watt, the party’s general secretary, and was told the procedure was above board and part of a “long-standing” arrangement.”
Like buying drugs from your regular dealer. Long-standing. But illegal.
Is it just me or does anyone else hear “Mandelson” everytime someone says “Mendelsohn”….?
“Miss Harman was a surprise choice and not the one Gordon Brown would have made.”
Funny, I thought she was his choice!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/28/nbrown628.xml
420 Goupillon - so which are the “pragmatists” and which the “purists” of the Libs and the SDP? And who tends to support each of the candidates, do you think?
423
been in a similar position. I expressed my reservations and asked for a written reply. I did not get it.. so resigned. Company went bust 12 months later.
Any one in such a situation asks for written assurances cos then they can legitimately blame someone else. And more important.. prove it.
398 Thanks Peter.
Just as significant as Clinton/Obama, Huckabee is breathing down Romney’s neck. Seems to be a pettern there now. Huckabee improving in Iowa and Florida.
421 the last paragraph but one on page two, should be very worrying methinks…………..
414 - you know many of us (don’t know about inside the plp) are hoping if nothing else this will be the end of id cards.
there was a fascinating article in the Guardian’s bad science column on saturday on just how easy it is to fake biometric information.
SI have dropped the Labour spread yet again - now down to 266/272.
I would be interested to know what PBers (punters, that is, not tubthumpers) think the realistic floor is. Innocent Abroad has suggested 200. I think that’s a bit low but at present am ruling nothing out.
Do we have a PB consensus?
428 Well spotted! I wondered when Wee Dougie would make his inevitable appearance in all this.
“Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary and former Transport Secretary, has also been dragged into the row after it emerged that ministers intervened with the Highways Agency to ensure that planning permission was granted to Mr Abrahams’ associates for a business park in Co Durham.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2959161.ece?token=null&offset=12
430
210 From a tubthumper!
424 - it’s pathetic isn’t it? These people really don’t have the first idea about leading a team, do they?
416 LOL!
Other quite striking resemblance I’ve spotted are Mr. Bean/Nicholas Sarkozy; Jamie Oliver/Fred West; and Prince Harry/Hilary Briss (Royston Vaizey’s psycopathic butcher).
424 “Within minutes, Mr Brown made his estimation of [Harman] painfully apparent. Appointing her as Labour chairman, he made clear that she would not occupy the deputy prime minister’s job John Prescott had vacated nor get to run the next election campaign. That task would go to Douglas Alexander, a close Brown ally.”
And in appointing Wee Dougie, made my estimation of Gordon Brown painfully apparent. I punched a wall and screamed “What the f**k is Brown thinking of???”
Anybody seen Wee Dougie in recent days, btw?
429 chance you could bring in to the attention of Labour MPs? Kali Mountford perhaps?
434- Mr Bean is much taller than Nicolas Sarkozy (and less tanned).
Peter the Punter @ 430.
200 seats for Labour implies a disaster of epic Micheal Foot proportions. Even given the Prime Minister’s present travails I believe that proposition is most unlikely. I would have thought a range of 230-250 to be more likely.
430 PtP
Hope my view may count as (usually) a non-punter. Don’t think it is very likely that it will drop below 220 (but then I don’t think the Tory ceiling at present is much above 300.
425.Tim13 - good point. My background is old SDP and I regard myself as a pragmatist because I want to see the Party increase its support and really challenge the 2 larger parties. To do this I consider the Party needs to change its “political style” in the way Chris Huhne is suggesting and currently demonstrating. How ever I can fully appreciate Clegg supporters may think the opposite.
New thread
430 200 seats are unloseable for Labour, so in that sense, it’s the floor, but I can’t see them sinking so low.
440 - Interesting. Not a LibDem, but i see Chris Huhne as the “remain as a third party” candidate.
433-Always the same characters, Wee Dougie, Ed B and Ed Miliband.That’s what I call a team!!!!
435-Wee is giving good advices to Brown, that’s why we don’t hear “anything” about him
441 Mike always changes the bloody thread when I’m in full flow.
I’ll have to speak to him.
Some have inferred that if it’s just incompetence or negligence that’s somehow acceptable. If the Labour Party internal inquiry wants to do anything practical in saving itself from the wrath of the electorate then it should root out both.
I agree with you, Goupillon, and my background is old (60s style “Young”) Liberal! But I regard myself as a “radical” - but that would certainly not lead me down a Clegg supporting path!
443. Alex - no I am a LD member and I will continue to support them whatever the outcome of the leadership contest.
Cable looked good today, and he talks a lot of sense when you watch him on TV. Certainly knows his stuff, surely if he is not leader then he must become the lib dems equivalent to the chancellor.
449 - He already is!
Alex There is a (fairly) lively debate in the Lib Dems about how to break out of the 3rd party trap. I (and clearly Goupillon) believe the only way to do that is to go distinctive. Others in the party look to “sticking to the centre” and therefore not do anything to rock the boat of the post-Thatcher / Blair consensus. You, I think, like most of the Tories or near-Tories on this site, would find it hard to go along with this. Which, I think is why you express that view. Equally, I believe, from doorstep experience, that many ordinary Tory voters would be more inclined to break away from their normal habits in favour of a Lib Dem who took a noticeably different line. For most of the other potential LD voters, looking “more Tory” is not an attractive line. So for me, and those who think similarly, there is no alternative as far as positioning and political strategy is concerned. Charles kennedy’s great strength was to represent that independence of mind to the great non-political British public.
430. The 210 of the 1983 election must be the lowest possible limit. As repulsive as Gordon is he still can’t compare to Foot and his manifesto that welcomed the firm guiding hand of our new Soviet overlords.
452 That’s an interesting comparison, Panurge.
I can remember campaigning for Foot and thinking at the time ‘if this guy gets anywhere near winning, I’m voting Tory.’
I guess 210 really must be a lower limit.
453 I don’t think it will be that bad - even 230-240 would be dreadful but certainly possible but not 200-210 surely?
451 - No i’ve no problem with the LibDems being distinctive, although they certainly shouldn’t be distinctive just for the sake of it.
However I do think that they is a very clear difference in style between the approaches of the two candidates. And frankly, however true it may be, i don’t think running around accusing the Govt of being corrupt to it’s core, is the route to becoming a serious player to the extent of challenging the two main parties.
Cameron and his shadow cabinet are showing great credibility at the moment, because for the first time in 10 years they are not blindly attacking the Govt at every opportunity. They are realistic enough to know that many of the challenges are the same they will face in power, and are generally convincing themselves that they would genuinely have done better before piling in.
452 Although compared to 1983, there are fewer seats in Scotland, and many inner city seats would have been abolishedin the subsequent boundary changes, so a Foot like % result in the country now would probably give Labour fewer than 200 seats.
Fwiw, I don’t see Labour being remotely that low at the next election and I can’t see them falling below 250.
On 1983 share of the vote, and assuming no change in level of tactical voting (which obviously isn’t realistic):
Con 363
Lab 195
Lib 69
” I suggest whoever wins the LD leadership contest has a “flexible rota” for PMQ. Why should it always be the leader taking the main Party slot. We could then continue to have the benefit of Vince’s skills and other talents as well as the leader. ”
Bad idea…you’d be attacked for not having a strong leader… or that you have actually have three because no one is capable enough on thier own. It would also confuse the hell out of the man in the street who are hard pressed to know the Lib Dem leader at the best of times…
387 Good point. As soon as the Tories raise the issue they get hit with Ashcroft, as Michael Gove discovered on Newsnight on Monday. However much they wriggle on this it’s hard for them to portray themselves as much better than Labour in the funding game. And who was that shady character who gave the LDs lots of money before the last General Election? The irony is that in times past much murkier relationships existed between parties and donors - Lord Kagan and Harold Wilson, the Tories in the 1980s and companies like Trafalgar House that did well out of privatisation - and yet because these relationships were not scrutinised the myth has developed that somehow things are much worse nowadays, when they are patently not.